Just got the boot

jojotdfb

@TheRubyWarlock said:
Maybe I'll spend some time teaching myself more of Ruby and .NET (see my nickname :-p) while I look for a new job.

You're a Ruby Warlock when you can tell me what this does without running it through the interpreter:
def mystery_method(n)
  [n, 2].inject(nil) { |m, x| m ? m.send(:to_s, x) : x }
end

It says to me that unreadable code can be written in Ruby just as easy as C, C++, Java, C#, VB or most other languages, but I may be a bitter ole bastard.

dhromed

@jojotdfb said:

@djork said:
You're a Ruby Warlock when you can tell me what this does without running it through the interpreter:
def mystery_method(n)
  [n, 2].inject(nil) { |m, x| m ? m.send(:to_s, x) : x }
end
It says to me that unreadable code can be written in Ruby just as easy as C, C++, Java, C#, VB or most other languages, but I may be a bitter ole bastard.

I thought this aspect of programming was evident as to not require mentioning. No language can save you from bad code. Bad Shit is present in all crafts and every skill set, across the entire domain of human creation.

In any case, I've never written a char of Ruby (save for the online toy to make acquaintance with it) -- just browsed through the spec/manual. I can figure out what that code does, so designating that line of code a criterium for being a "Ruby Warlock" seems a little far-fetched, since I am quite obviously far, far removed from any status resembling a Ruby Warlock.

Now excuse me as I look up the inject method (or should I call it "message"?). :3

ShadowWolf

@TheRubyWarlock said:

You know what? You're right. I've already started experimenting with some of the things that gave me "trouble" at that job so I'll be better prepared for the next one. If nothing else, the experience exposed me to a "better" (subjectively speaking) way of doing things than what I had used at the jobs before. Although everybody who I have spoke to have always said you should put in exactly 100% (i.e. only ever work 8 hours since you don't get paid for working over it - no reason to give extra for no return), you're correct in that I should have spent more time at home playing around with similar methodologies so I would have been better prepared.

I guess my initial post was more A) Frustrated venting (I *had* to get it off my chest, and knew of no other way to do so), and B) Shock/surprise/anger at being let go without ever being told that I wasn't learning quick enough or was doing something "wrong".

THis is just my opinion, but I believe here is the essence of why you got fired. See, those people giving you that advice live in fantasty world where everyone can work just the number of hours they are paid (40) and that's enough. Here in reality, results > working hours. Really, most businesses are more interested in what you produce versus how many hours you work. Thus is why many places talk about promotion based on merit (how much does person A accomplish versus Person B).

Also, Right to Work is not bullcrap. Right to work says that Unions cannot force an employee to join a Union. Essentially, it means that Unions cannot run the workforce and you have a right to work there as a non-union member although you may have to pay union dues or union equivalent fees, but you cannot be fired if you choose to not join the Union. The way these little things work seems to vary based on locale, specific laws, and other factors; however, the overall air of Right-to-work seems to follow this. Many Right-to-work districts completely forbid a union from requiring dues/feels from non-members (you can join at your option and gain the protection of the CBA, but if you choose not to do so, they can't fire you). Your grandfather was probably a member of some form of crafting environment where Unions would often use their power to create exclusive agreements and try to take total control over a labor industry. Keep in mind that right to work is both ways in that an employer cannot refuse to hire someone because they are part of a union.

At-Will Employment, practically speaking, means that an employer or employee can terminate the employment contract (explicitly or implicitly) without any sort of liability to the other party. Most jurisdictions require that At-Will Employment be subject to any kind of state or federal laws, so you cannot discriminate against an employee or do anything else illegal (ie, firing someone because they refuse to do something illegal would be considered wrongful termination - though proving it would be difficult). The United States, being the forefront of At-Will Employment, has stated that At-Will implies that everything is done in "good faith" to both parties. From my understanding, this would be primarily that one party is not doing something malicious in the process of terminating the other. This typically only applies to the Employer and not usually to the Employee (Employers have other recourses for collecting damages). Also, At-Will Employment does not apply to contracts that specify a length of time - most commonly with CEOs. Complete At-Will Employment is prone to cause more problems then it would ever solve and things like layoffs and firings would occur with no good reason. Thus is why there are many exceptions.

Many companies seem to have an unofficial no tolerance policy for employees. Seems like you make one mistake now-a-days or don't demonstrate enough dedication (whatever that means), you find yourself on the street. At least that's my perception - reality may vary.